Make Woke Coke Go Broke!

Dont eat at McDonalds then...

Don’t worry, I don’t

Just like the cancel culture boycotts of Nikes, the NFL, MLB, and that dietary habit changing towards the WH Trump endorsed Goya, this campaign will last as long as it takes for the next Happy Meal crave to come up.

Cancel culture is a thing apart from boycotts. A boycott isn't meant to end people's careers. It's meant to spark a change.

Tell it to this fella.
Oh, and also the trans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, AOCians, Washington DC staehoodians, Harry Potter, the Wizard of Oz, Darwin, Dinosaurs fossils, the possibility of life on anywhere that isn't God's teeny weeny green Earth, Muslims, the Squad, Demoncrats, Hollywood, abortionists, that Satanic Fetus Pizza Delivery Service, and whatever else the Alt Right wishes to 'spark a change' in.

DC Statehoodians*

Did republicans stop lil nas x devil shoes? I don’t think so.

Naah, they failed at that attempt.

Ya cuz it was Nike who didn’t want their logo on it

aaaaaaaaaaaand all the memers cramming the fp with last week's meme theme with all the rants screaming to high heaven about the evil Demonicrats?

Well the demonrats are evil anti Americans soooo

Tell me about it

Hahaha bbbbb..but the shaman.

What does The Wizard of Oz have to do with anything?

You can eat there just don’t drink there

:0)

I tried faygo once. The awful made me physically ill that I threw up 🤢

When will you learn...

Boycotting isn’t cancelling...cancelling is complaining enough until a higher authority’s forces change upon the subject of grievance. Boycotting just shuts off revenue from the source.

ok this is pretty damn clever!

Nooo, I agree with not buying it 100% but don't you dare dump that poison into the oceans, it'll kill all the sea life lol

I am with you, nukeman!

Good One - 20f68v.jpg (click to show) Meme Upvoted!

Saving money, one bad company at a time. As a bonus, sports is dying out so more free time.

Lmfao this is actually funny

so you like cancel culture now

Cancel culture is top down, this is voting with your dollar. Bottom up. Why do lefties not understand the difference?

Because they are too stupid.

Boycotting isn’t cancelling...cancelling is complaining enough until a higher authority’s forces change upon the subject of grievance. Boycotting just shuts off revenue from the source.

A lot of cancelling is also boycotting.

Lol

Start protesting outside their factories and bottlers.

wait coke just made statements against voter suppression? cancell them and then make liberal cancel culture memes as if all liberals are toxic on twitter

Dude...Coke spoke out against a Georgia voting bill that is less restrictive than current voting law in a lot of states, both Republican and Democrat. It’s nothing but blithe virtue signaling. That’s why we’re calling them out.

How is it less restrictive?

Here's how you can tell:

- Step 1: Read the bill. I've found the link to the final form that was signed into law by Georgia's governor:https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121

- Step 2: Compare provisions related to the following subjects [Absentee voting time periods, absentee ballot ID qualifications, in-person early voting time periods, in-person early voting ID qualifications] and compare them to similar metrics in other states.

You'll find that after these changes Georgia is actually in the middle of the spectrum when it comes to accessibility, which is an absurdly far cry from all this BS about it being, "Jim Crow 2.0" or whatever the idiots are calling it.

Close but no cigar.

The key argument that the law is Jim Crow 2.0 is based on the requirement for voter ID, specifically a driver’s license. In the past, sometimes just before elections if not in general, DMVs and other such offices were often closed in predominantly black or minority counties to make it difficult, but not impossible, for them to be obtained.

The problem with the backlash isn’t the absentee voting or voting times but rather the photo ID requirement. Between this and the reportedly long lines in Georgia due to several polling places closing in black communities, it is natural for them to make the assumptions that they are the target rather than illegal voters.

Where their argument falls apart has nothing to do with the absentee voting laws or it being “less restrictive in *a lot* of states... if you just *read* the law” but rather that Georgia allows even expired photo IDs to verify a voter’s citizenship.

Argue better and you’ll see less BS.

Read...the...law; Section 4 establishes a straight-to-AG hotline that can be used anonymously to report ANY election abuse. So you've already got that tool if people are closing election stations earlier than is legal.

Then go read lines 888 to 897. It CLEARLY says that anyone unable to present a driver's license, state ID, or other photo ID is subject to Georgia Code 21-2-417, which I've linked for you below.

https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ea467e24-9e3d-405f-a33b-53178b343666&nodeid=AAVAADAANAACAAT&nodepath=%2FROOT%2FAAV%2FAAVAAD%2FAAVAADAAN%2FAAVAADAANAAC%2FAAVAADAANAACAAT&level=5&haschildren=&populated=false&title=%C2%A7+21-2-417.+Presentation+of+identification+to+poll+workers%3B+form+of+proper+identification%3B+swearing+of+statement+when+unable+to+produce+proper+identification%3B+provisional+ballots+for+those%3B+penalty+for+false+statement+under+oath&config=00JAA1MDBlYzczZi1lYjFlLTQxMTgtYWE3OS02YTgyOGM2NWJlMDYKAFBvZENhdGFsb2feed0oM9qoQOMCSJFX5qkd&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A61XD-TBS1-FJM6-63B3-00008-00&ecomp=L38_kkk&prid=5c395e15-67c7-44a8-a694-403f03158f92

This (absurdly long link, lol) section of Code is current law and says in section C that anyone unable to meet the normal qualifications for voting (presenting a photo ID) may use something as simple as a utility bill to show proof of residency, and their ballot is then counted as election workers go to confirm their residency status.

Instead of using little barbs like, "argue better", I encourage you again to actually read what is law before wasting your time complaining about something that doesn't actually happen.

No, Dude. I agree with you just not how you’re arguing. Sorry dude but not everyone is going to read the actual law. And maybe you didn’t know when I asked since it took you two weeks to respond. It seems to me, just mentioning how it’s less restrictive is more constructive than saying read the law. That is what I mean to argue better.

Oh I'll come clean and admit it took me two weeks to respond because I wanted to make sure I had the right bill text, so you're absolutely right there. The problem is I've already been shouted down as a 'white supremacist', 'slaver', and 'f*****g racist' in three separate conversations when I just contend that it's less restrictive without actually presenting any evidence. :(

Call me bitter, but I'm done being maligned for defending a bill that is nowhere near what its opponents claim it to be. Using the actual text is the only way to actually demonstrate that I'm right, which is sad.

It'll never happen.

Buying the product and then getting rid of it is a smart as Clumpy telling us that China pays the tariffs- brilliant!
Of course the "stable genius: who called for the boycott still uses the product. he expects his cult to ignore this little fact.